DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 & 2 cite the phrases “a detachable peel-away ply facing the tool radius portion” and ‘the detachable peel-away ply faces the bladder and the tool major surface’; however, the claims and specification do not define ‘facing’ and does not further define the structural relationship between those components. The claims will be examined using the most fitting common definition (as understood by the Examiner) of “to have a front oriented toward”. Direct contact will not be required between the components facing each other, as ‘direct contact’ is separately described from ‘facing’ in the instant specification: “such that the peel-away ply faces the tool radius portion and is in direct contact with the tool radius portion” [0041].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hilton (US2020282676A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A composite-part manufacturing apparatus comprising: a tool having a tool radius portion that elongates between a tool trough surface and a tool major surface; a bladder disposed in vicinity of the tool trough surface; a radius filler disposed in vicinity of the tool radius portion; a detachable peel-away ply facing the tool radius portion; and at least one material layer over the detachable peel-away ply.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Hilton teaches a composite-part manufacturing apparatus (Fig. 7) comprising: a tool (Fig. 7, item 704) having a tool radius portion that elongates between a tool trough surface and a tool major surface (Fig. 7, item 704, see the elongated slanted walls adjacent to the horizontal base) [0086]; a bladder (Fig. 7, item 720) disposed in vicinity of the tool trough surface [0087]; a radius filler (Fig. 7, item 724, 726) disposed in vicinity of the tool radius portion [0088]; a detachable peel-away ply (Fig. 7, item 728) facing the tool radius portion [0089, 0090]; and at least one material layer (Fig. 7, item 712) over the detachable peel-away ply [0089].
2. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 1 wherein the detachable peel-away ply faces the bladder and the tool major surface.
With respect to claim 2, Hilton teaches in Figure 7 that the detachable peel-away ply faces the bladder and the tool major surface by extending from one tool radius to the other.
4. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 1 wherein the bladder has a bladder radius portion.
With respect to claim 4, Hilton teaches the bladder has a bladder radius portion in each top corner (See Fig. 4, item 404 embodiment).
5. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 4 wherein the radius filler is located between the tool radius portion and the bladder radius portion.
With respect to claim 5, Hilton teaches the radius fillers (Fig. 7, items 724, 726) are located between the tool radius portion and the bladder radius portion (See Figs. 7 & 8; [0088, 0093]).
7. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 1 wherein the bladder is inflated with air.
With respect to claim 7, Hilton teaches the bladder is inflated with air, as it teaches the bladder is filled by pneumatic (air or gas) pressure [0044-0045] and is silent on the use of any other type of gas.
10. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 1 wherein the at least one material layer over the detachable peel-away ply comprises at least one curable material layer over the detachable peel-away ply.
With respect to claim 10, Hilton teaches the at least one material layer over the detachable peel-away ply comprises at least one curable material layer over the detachable peel-away ply (Fig. 7, items 712, 716).
13. An aerospace part having a number of stringers manufactured using the composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 1.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art of Hilton teaches an aerospace part [0121] having a number of stringers manufactured using the composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 1 [0044].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton (US2020282676A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
6. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 1 wherein the bladder is inflated to a pressure sufficient for the radius filler to be pressed against the detachable peel-away ply.
With respect to claim 6, Hilton teaches the bladder is inflated to a pressure sufficient for the radius filler to be pressed against the detachable peel-away ply [0044, 0045, 0102]. While the radius filler is not explicitly mentioned by Hilton when discussing inflating the bladder, it is prima facie obvious from Figure 8 that the radius fillers would be pressed by the inflatable bladder, and that the radius fillers could contact the ends of the detachable ply layer when under pressure (See Figs. 7 & 8, items 726, 728).
Claims 3, 14-17 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton (US2020282676A1), in view of Heath (US20170136687A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
3. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 2 wherein the detachable peel-away ply is in direct contact with the radius filler.
With respect to claim 3, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, Hilton teaches the detachable peel-away ply (Fig. 7, item 728) between the ply layer and bladder.
Hilton is silent on the detachable peel-away ply in direct contact with the radius filler. It appears the peel-away layer is the same length as a layup support layer (Fig. 7, item 710), which may block the peel-away ply from contacting the radius fillers.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Heath teaches an apparatus for manufacturing composite aerospace stiffeners (See Figs. 9 & 10), wherein an inflatable bladder mandrel (Fig. 5, item 48) is surrounded by a coextruded detachable peel-away ply layer (Fig. 6, items 50, 52), with the bladder and peel-away ply placed together in the cavity of the molding tool to shape the article [0044-0045]. This configuration allows for detachment of the film from the bladder and removal of the bladder after the curing of the molded composite article [0048].
Heath is silent on the need for a layup support layer between the bladder and composite material layer.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the peel-away ply and layup support layer, taught by Hilton, with the detachable peel-away ply layer taught by Heath that surrounds the inflatable bladder mandrel. This modified apparatus of Hilton, in view of Heath, would predictably result in the ability to remove the bladder mandrel from the detachable ply layer, with the ply layer in direct contact with the radius fillers and the surrounding material layers.
14. A composite-part manufacturing apparatus comprising: a tool having a tool radius portion that elongates between a tool trough surface and a tool major surface; a bladder pressed against the tool trough surface; a radius filler in direct contact with the tool radius portion; a detachable peel-away ply in direct contact with the radius filler, the bladder, and the tool; and at least one material layer on the detachable peel-away ply.
With respect to claim 14, the prior art of Hilton teaches a composite-part manufacturing apparatus (Fig. 7) comprising: a tool (Fig. 7, item 704) having a tool radius portion that elongates between a tool trough surface and a tool major surface (Fig. 7, item 704, see the elongated slanted walls adjacent to the horizontal base) [0086]; a bladder (Fig. 7, item 720) disposed in vicinity of the tool trough surface [0087]; a radius filler (Fig. 7, item 724, 726) disposed in vicinity of the tool radius portion [0088]; and at least one material layer (Fig. 7, item 712) on the detachable peel-away ply.
Hilton teaches a detachable peel-away ply (Fig. 7, item 728) facing the tool radius portion [0089, 0090]; and at least one material layer (Fig. 7, item 712) over the detachable peel-away ply [0089].
Hilton is silent on the detachable peel-away ply being in direct contact with the radius filler, the bladder, and the tool (See Figs. 7 & 8 - the outer edges of the peel-away ply may or may not contact the radius filler or the tool radius section).
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Heath teaches an apparatus for manufacturing composite aerospace stiffeners (See Figs. 9 & 10), wherein an inflatable bladder mandrel (Fig. 5, item 48) is surrounded by a coextruded detachable peel-away ply layer (Fig. 6, items 50, 52), with the bladder and peel-away ply placed together in the cavity of the molding tool to shape the article [0044-0045]. This configuration allows for detachment of the film from the bladder and removal of the bladder after the curing of the molded composite article [0048].
Heath is silent on the need for a layup support layer between the bladder and composite material layer.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the peel-away ply and layup support layer, taught by Hilton, with the detachable peel-away ply layer taught by Heath that surrounds the inflatable bladder mandrel. This modified apparatus of Hilton, in view of Heath, would predictably result in the ability to remove the bladder mandrel from contact with the detachable ply layer, with the ply layer in direct contact with the radius fillers and the tool sections surrounding the cavity.
15. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 14 wherein: the bladder comprises a bladder radius portion, and the radius filler is located between the tool radius portion and the bladder radius portion; and the at least one material layer comprises at least one curable material layer.
With respect to claim 15, Hilton teaches the bladder comprises a bladder radius portion (See Fig. 4, item 404 upper corners), a radius filler (Fig. 7, item 724, 726) located between the tool radius portion and the bladder radius portion [0088]. Hilton teaches the at least one material layer over the detachable peel-away ply comprises at least one curable material layer over the detachable peel-away ply (Fig. 7, items 712, 716).
16. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 14 wherein the bladder is inflated to a pressure sufficient for the radius filler to be pressed against the detachable peel-away ply.
With respect to claim 16, Hilton teaches the bladder is inflated to a pressure sufficient for the radius filler to be pressed against the detachable peel-away ply [0044, 0045, 0102]. While the radius filler is not explicitly mentioned by Hilton when discussing inflating the bladder, it is prima facie obvious from Figure 8 that the radius fillers would be pressed by the inflatable bladder, and that the radius fillers could contact the ends of the detachable ply layer when under pressure (See Figs. 7 & 8, items 726, 728).
17. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 14 wherein the bladder is inflated with air.
With respect to claim 17, Hilton teaches the bladder is inflated with air, as it teaches the bladder is filled by pneumatic (air or gas) pressure [0044-0045] and is silent on the use of any other type of gas.
20. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 14 wherein the at least one material layer over the detachable peel-away ply comprises at least one curable material layer over the detachable peel-away ply.
With respect to claim 20, Hilton teaches the at least one material layer over the detachable peel-away ply comprises at least one curable material layer over the detachable peel-away ply (Fig. 7, items 712, 716).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton (US2020282676A1), in view of Cheng (US20190047677A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
8. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 1 wherein the radius filler comprises a thermoset resin.
With respect to claim 8, Hilton teaches the radius filler is cured as part of the final composite article [0043, 0098].
Hilton is silent on composition of the radius fillers, and whether they comprise thermoset resin.
However, the prior art of Cheng teaches a radius filler (Fig. 3, items 202) comprising chopped carbon fibers in a thermoset resin [0023, 0025], usable for aircraft structural components [0018].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the radius fillers taught by Cheng, comprising chopped carbon fibers in a thermoset resin, in place of the radius fillers of unknown composition taught by Hilton to predictably obtain a known and adequately strong for radius filler material that is compatible in aircraft applications.
9. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 8 wherein the thermoset resin contains at least some carbon fiber as reinforcement material.
With respect to claim 9, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, Cheng teaches the gap fillers comprise thermoset resin containing at least some carbon fiber as reinforcement material.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton (US2020282676A1), in view of Ponsolle (US20120308817A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
11. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 1 further comprising: a tacky substance disposed in vicinity of the tool radius portion and for maintaining position of the radius filler relative to the tool radius portion.
With respect to claim 11, Hilton teaches “in one illustrative example, when layup support 112 remains in composite structure 104, layup support 112 may be bonded to stiffened composite skin 140 and stiffener 142 by adhesive. In some illustrative examples, radius fillers 144 are formed by layup support 112. [0042].
However, Hilton is silent on details of the adhesive, and silent on the adhesive being a tacky substance.
However, the prior art of Ponsolle teaches resin-coated radius fillers (Fig. 6, fillers) usable in aircraft stringer applications [0043]. Ponsolle teaches the coated radius filler comprises fibers surrounded by a tacky adhesive coating, which allows the radius filler to stick in the tool radius portion when applied [0014].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the generic radius fillers taught by Hilton, which have an unknown composition, with the radius fillers taught by Ponsolle, which have internal fibers surrounded by a tacky resin coating. This modification would predictably result in radius fillers of known composition, with the ability to stick in place for easier application due to their tackiness.
12. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 11 wherein the tacky substance comprises a liquid adhesive.
With respect to claim 12, Ponsolle teaches the tacky radius filler is formed by passing the fibers through a liquid resin bath (Fig. 2, [0019, claim 1]).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hilton (US2020282676A1), in view of Heath (US20170136687A1), as set forth in the rejection of claim 14, and further in view of Cheng (US20190047677A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
18. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 14 wherein the radius filler comprises a thermoset resin.
With respect to claim 18, Hilton teaches the radius filler is cured as part of the final composite article [0043, 0098].
Hilton, in view of Heath, is silent on composition of the radius fillers, and whether they comprise thermoset resin.
However, the prior art of Cheng teaches a radius filler (Fig. 3, items 202) comprising chopped carbon fibers in a thermoset resin [0023, 0025], usable for aircraft structural components [0018].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the radius fillers taught by Cheng, comprising chopped carbon fibers in a thermoset resin, in place of the radius fillers of unknown composition taught by Hilton, in view of Heath, to predictably obtain a known and adequately strong for radius filler material that is compatible in aircraft applications.
19. The composite-part manufacturing apparatus of Claim 18 wherein the thermoset resin contains at least some carbon fiber as reinforcement material.
With respect to claim 19, as set forth in the rejection of claim 18, Cheng teaches the gap fillers comprise thermoset resin containing at least some carbon fiber as reinforcement material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant' s disclosure – Prause (US20200198262A1), Figs. 7-9, [0087-0090, Claim 1].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights